Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Gender Equality and the Worth of a Human Life: Too Crazy for Slashdot

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) writes | more than 4 years ago

User Journal 5

On Outside the Autistic Asylum, I tackle why pro-lifers should have supported the Equal Rights Amendment as I tackle the cusp of the point in time human beings have to decide whether or not to become parents. Too Crazy for Slashdot, indeed.

On Outside the Autistic Asylum, I tackle why pro-lifers should have supported the Equal Rights Amendment as I tackle the cusp of the point in time human beings have to decide whether or not to become parents. Too Crazy for Slashdot, indeed.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Don't get it (2)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 4 years ago | (#31070044)

Read the post four times. I don't see how you tackled shit or even addressed the ERA in any manner. Well, I do see one possible interpretation, but I'm not sure it's the one you meant.

Oh, and you assert that eugenics is pure evil. How?

I don't see where you've committed any logical fallacies, but that piece seems rife with logical laziness.

Re:Don't get it (2, Interesting)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 4 years ago | (#31074344)

Oh, it's not logical- that's why it's on Outside the Autistic Asylum instead of here, it's downright crazy.

It's more the idea of the ERA- that we shouldn't be writing gender differences into law. Well, being allowed to choose whether or not you're going to be a parent after having sex is a HUGE gender difference- one which should not be allowed except in rare cases, and even those rare cases should be either the *sole* decision of an emergency room doctor or having the man involved prosecuted for murder, same as any other crime that causes the death of a fetus.

On the Eugenics is Pure Evil, I thought that was pretty much a given based on Godwin's law. But I can think of three reasons not related to facism, so here they are:
1. For any given species to survive and evolve, it needs genetic diversity. Species that don't have genetic diversity have a tendency to run into trouble with double recessive and double dominant genes. Eugenics, in the search of the "perfect child", reduces genetic diversity.
2. Who gets to decide what the perfect human looks like anyway? Parental achievement is no indication- many geniuses come from impoverished or even mental illness backgrounds. Many crooks come from upper crust backgrounds. There are no good indicators.
3. The labeling of disabilities with good quality of life as preventable genetic diseases. A good example of this is Achondroplasia Dwafism [] , which is a rather benign form of dwarfism as long as your child isn't double-dominant; most Achondroplasia Dwarfs live long and happy lives. Yet it's on the list of normal human variety to be wiped out in the next generation by abortion.

I'm going to go back and add this response to my article directly.

Re:Don't get it (2)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 4 years ago | (#31074658)

Oh, and a 4th reason from my personal theology:
4. Eugenics is taking the power of saying who should live and who should die away from God and giving it to man.

Re:Don't get it (2, Insightful)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 4 years ago | (#31082992)

First sentence of the second paragraph is one of the directions I thought you'd go in, and made the most sense of the few I imagined.

Number four, in your other reply, is the only answer to the 'evil' question that really seems to support your original claim. 'Genetic diversity' and the other things you mentioned don't seem to me to contain a moral aspect.

Re:Don't get it (2, Insightful)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 4 years ago | (#31088098)

Maybe because, as an autistic, my morality is rather pragmatic- John Paul II's Theology of the Body makes sense to me precisely *because* it fits in with evolution and survival of the species. Respect for human life between conception and natural death also fits in strongly with the liberal neurodiversity side of things; a mutation that might be seen as negative in one light (like sickle cell anemia and the lessened ability to process and use oxygen) can be positive in another light (immunity to malaria); and at first glance we human beings just don't have the intelligence to know the difference.

If, as theistic Intelligent Designers claim, God created evolution and it's his method of engineering, then reducing the genetic diversity of the species is indeed taking the power of life and death, the central power of evolution, out of the hands of God and giving it to man. And based on our inability to know long term good from evil with mutations that are normal to the human species, yes, that becomes a moral argument.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>